IIRC, Haliburton posted a loss this year.

One can never tell what one makes in strange deals like this.

Insurance costs have risen, high risk pay - e.g. flight pay, combat pay
runs up the bill. And having tons and tons of security over the labor.

Martin

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...


The 3 engineering/construction companies which have done over 90% of the
engineering/construction work in the Middle East are Haliburton, Bechtel,
and the Bin Laden Group. No one else has any major experience in the
region. So if the contracts were put out for bid to qualified companies,
one of those 3 would be given the work. Likely it would be the Bin Laden
Group who would be the low bidder.


Talk about irony.

My understanding was that many of the contracts for supplies,
food, fuel, etc in the area were being padded, and the
payments were too high. I specifically recall items in the
news about fuel costs being inflated. Also the stories I've
heard coming back are that the US soldiers are not getting
their taxpayer dollar's worth for food and supplies.

Jim



--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

"???" wrote in message ...
Yes, the whole idea of tax cuts, according to Republican theory, is
that
putting money into the hands of individuals will result in spending. It
goes beyond that though. This spending will result in higher company sales
(money spent has to go somewhere, it simply does not vanish), these sales
result in increased earnings which result in increased profits used for
increased production. The increased production results in either increased
hirings or higher pay to existing workers who are working overtime or who
are being more productive. The higher wages produce greater taxable income.

The only problem is that it doesn't ****ing work. The money
disappears into the pockets of those that have the least need, and the
flood up, becomes a trickle down. Tax cuts for the higher income
brackets are nothing but a giveaway that WILL NEVER WORK. It has
never been successful, and being fundamentally wrong, only the stupid
will try to follow it. HUMAN NATURE is at the top and high sounding
but low minded speeches won't change it. It it had any chance of
working, the (now good republican) raygun might not have run the
deficit as high as it was before Clinton, and the asshole idiot bush
wouldn't have the highest deficit in history. It doesn't make sense
to keep borrowing into the hole, as WE ARE NOW DOING and end up
stringing everyone else with the bill when the ones that had the
benefit of the "cuts" aren't going to be asked to give up a little
along with everyone else.

raygun, bush and bush 2 have done nothing for keeping the economy
going well enough to have any benefit for 90% of the people, but you
just keep on building a "platform" (Paper box into which you blow hot
air) on a policy that ignores human nature. Blind is blind, blind and
stupid is a republican.

"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message gy.com...

Who can say anything else? But do honor to the service men that died in the
places you mention, and any where else that American servicemen have died
for this country. Neither of the two candidates is an outstanding example
of our fine service men and women. Kerry keeps talking about his military
career, but take a look at what people that actually served with him have to
say www.swiftvets.com . If you can find a similar site for Bush, let me
know.

Bush deserted.


This means I want my child to have a future in which includes safe, clean
air; safe clean water; reducing threat of environmental collapse due to
global warming (which in my opinion should be no less a concern than was
the
threat of Atomic War we dealt with for 40 years).

Again, who doesn't? I think you have fallen for the Democrat bs that if the
Republicans remain in control that all environmental controls will be
eliminated and the Earth will go to hell. Literally. The Republicans want
all that too, but I think they realize that it can't all be done at once.

They also realize that if they don't look at it NOW, it won't make a
hell of a lot of difference in 100 years, people will look back and
wonder how it happened. The republicans have fought EVERY effort to
stop polution, tooth and nail.


Here in California, the
Democrat controlled state congress has caused more companies to flee the
state than anything else. Taxes are way too high. Workers Comp is out of
control. Environmental controls had prevented the building of power plants
and now we have a power crisis (granted this is not ALL the fault of
environmental controls, but it is a factor).

California is one **** poor example of anything. Your property
values, moral and financial values are so screwed up that nothing but
a dozen nukes could ever make it a habitable place. My brothers house
in northern wackyland is valued at $260000. Mine is valued at $78000.
Mine is bigger, better insulated, and has a bigger lot.

There is talk about raising
the minimum wage to over $8.00 an hour is some places, and I think I
actually heard talk about $10.00 per hour. On and on. This is what's in
store for this country if the Democrats get their way.

I want my daughter and her children to live in a world that SEES and
ADMIRES
the USA as a beacon of world leadership. Not the leadership style that
comes by owning the biggest gun; but leadership that comes by the daily
living of values and seemingly insignificant acts that make it apparent
every day that the US is the "real deal".

Quite often, decisions made by leaders are not popular, but they are
correct.

Not from bush.


I will give you this, though. Bush is making far too much of a deal about
them. What he really needs to do is start acting like a conservative and
start eliminating government waste, eliminate some of the worse than useless
burocracies like NEA and others, and start eliminating some of the
government "entitlement" programs. And YES, the Social Security system does
need to be replaced. And NO, grandma will not be thrown out into the
streets.

I suggest you include eliminating the SBA, and any other office we
maintain that is supposed to be for the benefit of business, and let
the *******s either make it or break it on their own. The republican
party has been trying to kill social security since the day it was put
in effect, "It's too much drag on business." Sound familiar?


What is causing the freightening financial positions? Medicare, Social
Security, and Welfare programs that are top heavy, inflexible, inefficient,
wrought with fraud and waste, and designed to keep people in the programs
instead of helping them rise above?

Only a small fraction of what the military WASTES. Smaller fraction
of their overall budget.


WMD's - I
don't really care a whole lot about them.

Bush knew it was a lie, and when he denies it, he's just following the
way he lives, a lie. He's a walmart imitation of a man, made in china
from inferior materials and poor workmanship. Gutless coward that hid
behind his daddy's skirts so he didn't have to take any chances on
ending up where he might get a hangnail.

republican policy has failed since the inception of the abortion that
they are, why change now?

John,

You wrote:
Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

Here are the two instances of John Kerry's personal sacrifice I had included
in the original post If you read the original post again, you will find
them.

"Also, he puts his money where
his mouth is. Not only did he mortgage his own home to risk all in the Iowa
Primary, but he is proposing to raise his OWN taxes"

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark


Actually, Dewey, I did read your post. I guess my interpretation of "personal
sacrifice" differs considerably from yours.

Let's see. "He mortgaged his own home". The townhouse on Beacon Hill he
sweated for, right? Oh, wait, his wife gave it to him. Hell of an investment
there. Maybe it was sweat equity. If so, it wasn't from using a hammer. At
least, not a Stanley. Six point four million dollar mortgage. Interest alone
on that will come to well over $300,000 per year, won't it. Add in real estate
taxes and he'll be hard pressed to cover it with the $395,000 he made last
year. I didn't think senators were paid that much. Oh, I forgot - that
included $150,000 in capital gains from a painting he sold. A painting that
was given to him by.... guess who?

So, how do you think JFK 2 will be able to cover that mortgage next year? Or,
was the whole thing maybe just a way for him to get around the amount that his
wife could legally contribute to his campaign?

"He is proposing to raise his own taxes". He very well may. If his intent was
to raise just his own taxes, he could simply contribute additional monies to
the government. But his intent is to raise taxes for a lot of other people as
well. Hardly an altruistic move. If he does become president, he'll
undoubtedly pay much more in taxes for the rest of his life. Because he'll
undoubtedly make much more. I don't think he's running for the money. He
doesn't need to, he's found a better way to get it. He's married it - twice.
Cheap shot? Yes. But every bit as valid as your claim that his proposal to
raise taxes is a personal sacrifice.

And while we're on Kerry's taxes, let's not forget that little mistake he made
regarding the capital gains rate on that painting. A mistake that was pointed
out and rectified only because his return was made public. For a man as
self-sacrificing as you believe him to be, I'm surprised the "mistake" wasn't
in the IRS's favor.

And we all know what campaign promises are worth. Yes, even Bush #1's "read my
lips".

If those are really your ideas of personal sacrifice, I've got a few candidates
for sainthood for you. Bush, who to serve as governor gave up a job with the
Texas Rangers that had netted him fifteen million or so. Cheney, who left a
job at Halliburton that had averaged nine million a year. And even Edwards,
whose ambulance chasing had left him with assets of fifteen million plus. All
three of them belong right up there with Mother Theresa.

Personal sacrifice? Crap.

John Martin

John,

Almost all of what you say is true for almost every candidate in the last 30
years. It is a statement of the obvious. That the more well heeled people
are, the more complex their financial life. Hence, more room for reporting
error. Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys. I
do not engage in the politics of personal finance, so I will only suggest
that you apply some energy into appreciating the financial lives of Mr. Bush
and Mr. Cheney.

To pass your test of who is qualified to run for office would mean not
having a complicated financial life. Perhaps not a bad test, but not
realistic.

I suggest that your comments are based in emotion. In the absence of
including in your analysis the financial "bloopers" of Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney, you have failed to establish a basis for comparison. Yet you seem
to conclude that Mr. Kerry has a "dirtier" financial life. This is the
outcome of an emotional reaction, not thoughtful analysis.

It is kind of like the people who say they will vote for Mr. Bush because he
is "moral". When asked what they know about the "moralness" of Mr. Kerry,
they state they "know nothing". Yet, they feel they confident in concluding
Mr. Bush is more moral.

Like them, it is obvious you have made up your mind and will continue to
find information that fits into what your emotions have already led you to
conclude.

As for me, I choose the same analytic approach I use to evaluate my stock
portfolio. "Has the management done what they said they were going to do?
Are there good reasons why they have not met their benchmarks?"

As already clearly laid out, Mr. Bush has failed to achieve the benchmarks
he himself set. When asked why those benchmarks have not been achieved, he
has lots of reasons, none to do with himself or his approach.

This is when investors who were paying attention got out of Tyco and Global
Crossing. Only those who were emotional about the stocks rode them all the
way to the bottom.

Finally, my analysis of American history leads me to a conclusion the seems
to escape many who make political decisions based on emotional reactions.
This Country is inventive enough, strong enough and flexible enough to
prosper and grow no matter WHO is in office. That is simply our History as
a People.

Yes, it is my nature to be skeptical of someone who claims we can only
survive under his leadership. But it is my analysis of the two different
visions being offered that leads me to support Mr. Kerry and to reject Mr.
Bush's vision.

No other President in our history has so based his leadership on promoting
FEAR. EVERY President in times of National peril has focused NOT on the
present dangers that MAY rear up; but, on the future that awaits us. What
is facing us RIGHT NOW is no different that the threat of Atomic War we
faced for 40 years. It is no more than that. Just isn't. Can you imagine
Mr. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan promoting
the level of fear being pushed by Mr. Bush?

These leaders then pushed efforts to help Americans learn to deal with
attacks that might occur. They did not say; "It is MY responsibility to
protect you completely; so trust only me." They said "The Government is and
always will do its best to avoid the unthinkable. But, you need to know how
to cope should the unthinkable happen."

Here we are, three years out, and what do YOU know of the laws passed giving
the CDC the authority to invoke quarantine and martial law and under which
conditions soldiers are authorized to shoot those attempting to leave a
quarantined area. What do YOU know of the plans for rationing drugs and
long term care equipment needed to care for those made sick or injured in an
attack (and some of the possible biological agents can only be treated with
long term supportive care such as a bed in an ICU)? What do YOU know of the
pecking order for who gets those drugs and access to those ICU beds?

I am certain you cannot answer those questions without first doing some
Google searches. Very few can. Is THIS the kind of leadership you want to
follow? A leader who says "The world is a fearful place and I am the only
who can protect you". But THEN he never prepares Americans for what to
expect should the unthinkable occur? Does he have that little respect and
confidence in average Americans?

Oh, and don't tell me it needs to be kept secret for National Security. You
will find what you need to know at the various University BioWarfare
Centers, CDC, FEMA, the Congressional Record and other such sites. But as
of today, YOU have to hunt it down.

In this area, I have no idea how Mr. Kerry would approach the preparation
issue. But at least he has not already failed at it.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707

John,

Almost all of what you say is true for almost every candidate in the last 30
years. It is a statement of the obvious. That the more well heeled people
are, the more complex their financial life. Hence, more room for reporting
error. Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys. I
do not engage in the politics of personal finance, so I will only suggest
that you apply some energy into appreciating the financial lives of Mr. Bush
and Mr. Cheney.

To pass your test of who is qualified to run for office would mean not
having a complicated financial life. Perhaps not a bad test, but not
realistic.

I suggest that your comments are based in emotion. In the absence of
including in your analysis the financial "bloopers" of Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney, you have failed to establish a basis for comparison. Yet you seem
to conclude that Mr. Kerry has a "dirtier" financial life. This is the
outcome of an emotional reaction, not thoughtful analysis.

It is kind of like the people who say they will vote for Mr. Bush because he
is "moral". When asked what they know about the "moralness" of Mr. Kerry,
they state they "know nothing". Yet, they feel they confident in concluding
Mr. Bush is more moral.

Like them, it is obvious you have made up your mind and will continue to
find information that fits into what your emotions have already led you to
conclude.

As for me, I choose the same analytic approach I use to evaluate my stock
portfolio. "Has the management done what they said they were going to do?
Are there good reasons why they have not met their benchmarks?"

As already clearly laid out, Mr. Bush has failed to achieve the benchmarks
he himself set. When asked why those benchmarks have not been achieved, he
has lots of reasons, none to do with himself or his approach.

This is when investors who were paying attention got out of Tyco and Global
Crossing. Only those who were emotional about the stocks rode them all the
way to the bottom.

Finally, my analysis of American history leads me to a conclusion the seems
to escape many who make political decisions based on emotional reactions.
This Country is inventive enough, strong enough and flexible enough to
prosper and grow no matter WHO is in office. That is simply our History as
a People.

Yes, it is my nature to be skeptical of someone who claims we can only
survive under his leadership. But it is my analysis of the two different
visions being offered that leads me to support Mr. Kerry and to reject Mr.
Bush's vision.

No other President in our history has so based his leadership on promoting
FEAR. EVERY President in times of National peril has focused NOT on the
present dangers that MAY rear up; but, on the future that awaits us. What
is facing us RIGHT NOW is no different that the threat of Atomic War we
faced for 40 years. It is no more than that. Just isn't. Can you imagine
Mr. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan promoting
the level of fear being pushed by Mr. Bush?

These leaders then pushed efforts to help Americans learn to deal with
attacks that might occur. They did not say; "It is MY responsibility to
protect you completely; so trust only me." They said "The Government is and
always will do its best to avoid the unthinkable. But, you need to know how
to cope should the unthinkable happen."

Here we are, three years out, and what do YOU know of the laws passed giving
the CDC the authority to invoke quarantine and martial law and under which
conditions soldiers are authorized to shoot those attempting to leave a
quarantined area. What do YOU know of the plans for rationing drugs and
long term care equipment needed to care for those made sick or injured in an
attack (and some of the possible biological agents can only be treated with
long term supportive care such as a bed in an ICU)? What do YOU know of the
pecking order for who gets those drugs and access to those ICU beds?

I am certain you cannot answer those questions without first doing some
Google searches. Very few can. Is THIS the kind of leadership you want to
follow? A leader who says "The world is a fearful place and I am the only
who can protect you". But THEN he never prepares Americans for what to
expect should the unthinkable occur? Does he have that little respect and
confidence in average Americans?

Oh, and don't tell me it needs to be kept secret for National Security. You
will find what you need to know at the various University BioWarfare
Centers, CDC, FEMA, the Congressional Record and other such sites. But as
of today, YOU have to hunt it down.

In this area, I have no idea how Mr. Kerry would approach the preparation
issue. But at least he has not already failed at it.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark




"Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys." My error,
Dewey? Hardly.

You were the one claiming that Kerry had made "personal sacrifices", not I.
When I responded to your claims about those "sacrifices", you reply with a
condescending diatribe covering everything from Tyco to Truman to the CDC.
Covering everything, that is, except the question of Kerry's "personal
sacrifices". I guess this was just the old Plan B approach - when you can't
win on the facts, baffle them with bull****.

I'd respond to some of your points, but it isn't worth it - for I fear you'd
just change the subject again.

Just for the record, Dewey, here in its entirety is the post you were
responding to:


BEGIN PRIOR MESSAGE

John,

You wrote:
Which personal sacrifices were those?

John Martin

Here are the two instances of John Kerry's personal sacrifice I had included
in the original post If you read the original post again, you will find
them.

"Also, he puts his money where
his mouth is. Not only did he mortgage his own home to risk all in the Iowa
Primary, but he is proposing to raise his OWN taxes"

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark


Actually, Dewey, I did read your post. I guess my interpretation of "personal
sacrifice" differs considerably from yours.

Let's see. "He mortgaged his own home". The townhouse on Beacon Hill he
sweated for, right? Oh, wait, his wife gave it to him. Hell of an investment
there. Maybe it was sweat equity. If so, it wasn't from using a hammer. At
least, not a Stanley. Six point four million dollar mortgage. Interest alone
on that will come to well over $300,000 per year, won't it. Add in real estate
taxes and he'll be hard pressed to cover it with the $395,000 he made last
year. I didn't think senators were paid that much. Oh, I forgot - that
included $150,000 in capital gains from a painting he sold. A painting that
was given to him by.... guess who?

So, how do you think JFK 2 will be able to cover that mortgage next year? Or,
was the whole thing maybe just a way for him to get around the amount that his
wife could legally contribute to his campaign?

"He is proposing to raise his own taxes". He very well may. If his intent was
to raise just his own taxes, he could simply contribute additional monies to
the government. But his intent is to raise taxes for a lot of other people as
well. Hardly an altruistic move. If he does become president, he'll
undoubtedly pay much more in taxes for the rest of his life. Because he'll
undoubtedly make much more. I don't think he's running for the money. He
doesn't need to, he's found a better way to get it. He's married it - twice.
Cheap shot? Yes. But every bit as valid as your claim that his proposal to
raise taxes is a personal sacrifice.

And while we're on Kerry's taxes, let's not forget that little mistake he made
regarding the capital gains rate on that painting. A mistake that was pointed
out and rectified only because his return was made public. For a man as
self-sacrificing as you believe him to be, I'm surprised the "mistake" wasn't
in the IRS's favor.

And we all know what campaign promises are worth. Yes, even Bush #1's "read my
lips".

If those are really your ideas of personal sacrifice, I've got a few candidates
for sainthood for you. Bush, who to serve as governor gave up a job with the
Texas Rangers that had netted him fifteen million or so. Cheney, who left a
job at Halliburton that had averaged nine million a year. And even Edwards,
whose ambulance chasing had left him with assets of fifteen million plus. All
three of them belong right up there with Mother Theresa.

Personal sacrifice? Crap.

John Martin

END PRIOR MESSAGE


John Martin

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:36:53 -0400, "???" wrote:


I suggest that your comments are based in emotion. In the absence of
including in your analysis the financial "bloopers" of Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney, you have failed to establish a basis for comparison. Yet you seem
to conclude that Mr. Kerry has a "dirtier" financial life. This is the
outcome of an emotional reaction, not thoughtful analysis.

Ah..Dewey? I think you were just hoist by your own petard.

You waxed poetic about Kerry, making him out to be more altruistic
than Mother Theresa. Now you spin in another direction, deflecting the
subject away from your very own statements.

This is not intellectually honest, and displays not only a strong
bias, but your modest ad hominem attacks now on the Right is most
telling.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

More comments contained within.

"???" wrote in message ...
John,

Almost all of what you say is true for almost every candidate in the last
30
years. It is a statement of the obvious. That the more well heeled people
are, the more complex their financial life. Hence, more room for
reporting
error. Your error is that you focus only on the financials of the Kerrys.
I
do not engage in the politics of personal finance, so I will only suggest
that you apply some energy into appreciating the financial lives of Mr.
Bush
and Mr. Cheney.

I don't really count 1 or 2 accounting errors either, unless they are
whoppers. Unfortunately, the current tax system leaves people no choice but
to try and squeeze out as much as they possibly can and sometimes they will
squeeze too much. But Kerry's "personal sacrifices" are still symbolic
only. Do you have any doubt that he will pay it off in the near future.
Bush and Cheney will never recoup their losses either.

To pass your test of who is qualified to run for office would mean not
having a complicated financial life. Perhaps not a bad test, but not
realistic.

I suggest that your comments are based in emotion. In the absence of
including in your analysis the financial "bloopers" of Mr. Bush and Mr.
Cheney, you have failed to establish a basis for comparison. Yet you seem
to conclude that Mr. Kerry has a "dirtier" financial life. This is the
outcome of an emotional reaction, not thoughtful analysis.

It is kind of like the people who say they will vote for Mr. Bush because
he
is "moral". When asked what they know about the "moralness" of Mr.
Kerry,
they state they "know nothing". Yet, they feel they confident in
concluding
Mr. Bush is more moral.

I have done some reading about the moral character of Bush and Kerry, and
Kerry does not pass muster for me. Almost everything I have read says that
Bush is honest. Haven't seen much to oppose that except from Democrat
politicians who blame EVERYTHING bad on him. But Kerry doesn't take much
reading. Starting with the men that served with him in Vietnam, to his
post-Vietnam activities, to his voting record in the Senate. Even today.
Remember that abysmal performance of Kerry throwing out the first pitch at a
baseball game recently? Read the true story of that. The serviceman that
"caught" the pitch was the one scheduled to throw it. Kerry decided that he
wanted to do it and had his staff make a few calls. He "graciously" allowed
the servicman to catch. After the pitch, they all went to the box that
Kerry was using and cameras were everywhere. After about 30 minutes all the
cameras left and Kerry had the serviceman escorted up to the nosebleed
section. Is that the kind of morals you want? He used the serviceman and
then threw him away. That is probably the same thing we would do for our
military. There are more stories about Kerry like this.

By the way, can anyone reading this confirm or deny that Kerry's picture is
displayed in Vietnam as one of their heroes (and NOT for our side)?

Like them, it is obvious you have made up your mind and will continue to
find information that fits into what your emotions have already led you to
conclude.

You too. You have said that you have changed your party affiliation so I am
assuming that you were a Republican. If so, you HAD to have been a RINO.

As for me, I choose the same analytic approach I use to evaluate my stock
portfolio.
But yet, all of your reasons for changing party affiliation are emotional
and not analytical. Kerry's campaign so far has been a purely emotional
plea to voters. He says "I know how the system works" and uses that as an
excuse for not providing any details about how he plans to accomplish
anything. My guess is that he doesn't have a plan yet. The only detail he
has mentioned is rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%. That will
pay for Kerry's other plans for a little while, but what about the other 364
1/2 days in the year? Maybe that is what is holding up the plan.

"Has the management done what they said they were going to do?
Are there good reasons why they have not met their benchmarks?"

As already clearly laid out, Mr. Bush has failed to achieve the benchmarks
he himself set. When asked why those benchmarks have not been achieved,
he
has lots of reasons, none to do with himself or his approach.

Maybe you should analyze why they have not been met. Maybe the reasons ARE
out of his control. After all, 9/11 wasn't just one day. It was a day that
changed the entire world much like Pearl Harbor. You claim that he has not
met any of his benchmarks, but I disagree. He has met some, come close to
some, and yes, has missed some.

Look at some of Kerry's benchmarks.
Get my ass out of Vietnam ASAP by using false claims of Purple Hearts. -
accomplished.
Protest the Vietnam war like my idol Hanoi Jane. - accomplished.
Disrespect my "Band of Brothers" by claiming they committed war crimes. -
accomplished.
Vote against every weapons system that can defend this country. -
accomplished.
Tell the American people that I am the one to defend them. - ongoing

This is when investors who were paying attention got out of Tyco and
Global
Crossing. Only those who were emotional about the stocks rode them all
the
way to the bottom.

Finally, my analysis of American history leads me to a conclusion the
seems
to escape many who make political decisions based on emotional reactions.
This Country is inventive enough, strong enough and flexible enough to
prosper and grow no matter WHO is in office. That is simply our History
as
a People.

My analysis tells me the larger and more intrusive our government gets, the
more inventiveness, strength, and flexibility (and freedom, I might add)
suffer. Kerry (any Democrat) will make it larger and more intrusive at a
faster rate than Bush or any (true) Republican.

Yes, it is my nature to be skeptical of someone who claims we can only
survive under his leadership. But it is my analysis of the two different
visions being offered that leads me to support Mr. Kerry and to reject Mr.
Bush's vision.

I find this to be a totally self-contradictory statement. You say you are
skeptical of someone that claims that we can only survive under his
leadership, but both candidates say this. There is absolutely NO difference
there. Even you must see this. And then you say "But it is my analysis of
the two different visions...". Give me a break. There is no analysis here.
That is purely an emotional response.

No other President in our history has so based his leadership on promoting
FEAR. EVERY President in times of National peril has focused NOT on the
present dangers that MAY rear up; but, on the future that awaits us. What
is facing us RIGHT NOW is no different that the threat of Atomic War we
faced for 40 years. It is no more than that. Just isn't. Can you
imagine
Mr. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan promoting
the level of fear being pushed by Mr. Bush?

I think this argument is just plain silly and that you are absolutely wrong
on this one too. Must be another emotional response. Do you think, for
example, that Roosevelt was telling the country that the future was rosy
while selling war bonds, encouraging our youth to volunteer for military
service, implementing rationing, and conducting war so we could overcome the
menace growing in Europe that would certainly spread to the US at some point
if we did not intervene? Of course not. He was telling the American people
about the Nazi and Japanese threats. And again, what was Eisenhower saying
that caused so many Americans to build bomb shelters. I don't think they
were being built because he was telling everyone just how rosy the future
was going to be. They were being built because the President was telling
the people about the evil Soviet Empire and the threat to the American way o
f life. Every president in times of national peril HAS focused on the
present dangers. They have to. It's their job. It is without a doubt the
single most important thing they have to concern themselves with at that
time. Can I imagine the former presidents promoting the level of fear that
Bush has? You damned right I can. It would be irresponsible of him not to.
But it could all come down to what you define as fear (Damn Bill Clinton!!).
I don't think keeping people informed and educated (as much as can be told)
is promoting fear.


These leaders then pushed efforts to help Americans learn to deal with
attacks that might occur. They did not say; "It is MY responsibility to
protect you completely; so trust only me." They said "The Government is
and
always will do its best to avoid the unthinkable. But, you need to know
how
to cope should the unthinkable happen."

See above.

Here we are, three years out, and what do YOU know of the laws passed
giving
the CDC the authority to invoke quarantine and martial law and under which
conditions soldiers are authorized to shoot those attempting to leave a
quarantined area. What do YOU know of the plans for rationing drugs and
long term care equipment needed to care for those made sick or injured in
an
attack (and some of the possible biological agents can only be treated
with
long term supportive care such as a bed in an ICU)? What do YOU know of
the
pecking order for who gets those drugs and access to those ICU beds?

I am certain you cannot answer those questions without first doing some
Google searches. Very few can. Is THIS the kind of leadership you want
to
follow? A leader who says "The world is a fearful place and I am the only
who can protect you".
Again, Kerry is saying the exact same thing.

But THEN he never prepares Americans for what to
expect should the unthinkable occur? Does he have that little respect and
confidence in average Americans?

Hmmm. Respect and confidence in average Americans. Make no mistake about
this. The election is about power and money. It isn't about the people,
especially the "average Americans". Both candidates are the same in that
respect. But historically, it is typically the Democrats that promote and
implement programs like affirmative action and remember racial quotas? Talk
about disrespect. These progarms were implemented because minorities were
thought to be too stupid to achieve goals on their own. Bush's vision is
for the people to pull us up. The Democrats vision is to continually lower
the bar to the lowest level. That is disrespect for all above the bar. So
to answer your question, I give a slight nod to Bush on this one. Well,
maybe not to Bush directly, but the Republican party.

Oh, and don't tell me it needs to be kept secret for National Security.
You
will find what you need to know at the various University BioWarfare
Centers, CDC, FEMA, the Congressional Record and other such sites. But as
of today, YOU have to hunt it down.

In this area, I have no idea how Mr. Kerry would approach the preparation
issue. But at least he has not already failed at it.

Then why raise this as an issue? Since there isn't enough data to perform a
proper analysis, this is yet another emotional response. But again, look
at Kerry's voting record in the Senate. If he had his way, we wouldn't have
an inteligence agency that was worth a crap (and remember, it was another
Democrat named Bill Clinton that really castrated the CIA), and we would
have no defense platforms that have protected this country through strength.
There is a failure for you. It would have been catastrophic failure.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707



Go drink some more Kool-aid,

Wayne

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:25:28 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:

By the way, can anyone reading this confirm or deny that Kerry's picture is
displayed in Vietnam as one of their heroes (and NOT for our side)?

http://swiftvets.com/
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=FAQ
1. If most of Kerry's fellow Swift veterans don't support him, then
who were all those guys with him at the Democratic Convention? They
made it appear that Kerry has the complete support of his "Band of
Brothers" from Vietnam.
John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift
boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at
various times crew members on his own 6-man boat. Those are the men
the Kerry campaign so prominently featured at the Democratic
Convention. The photo we have posted at SwiftVets.com shows Kerry with
19 of his fellow Swift boat commanders in Coastal Division 11. Four
officers were not present for that photo. Only one of his 23 fellow
commanders from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry.

Overall, more than 250 Swift boat veterans are on the record
questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. That list
includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry
served under in Vietnam. The Kerry game plan is to ignore all this and
pretend that the 13 veterans his campaign jets around the country and
puts up in 5-star hotels really represent the truth about his short,
controversial combat tour.

The Swift boats fought in groups, so the other boat commanders who
fought alongside Kerry know him well and can accurately describe what
he did and did not do. In many cases the commanders have a better
perspective on Kerry than his own crew members, since the latter had
no way to determine whether he was following orders and how well he
worked with his peers."

oh...Kerry photo? G Yup..its real

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/st...40531140357545
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/st...40604194804799


And for fun....G

http://communistsforkerry.com/heroes.php

Gunner


"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

In article , Gunner says...

This is not intellectually honest, and displays not only a strong
bias, but your modest ad hominem attacks now on the Right is most
telling.

Could somebody please explain the dual personality I see here?
When somebody makes a post criticial of the right, we see
Mother Theresa responding with comments.

When he himself talks about the left, I can't tell if it's
Limbaugh or Moe Howard at the keyboard. It's a fine line.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:21:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift
boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at
various times crew members on his own 6-man boat.

Hummm reading that brings something to mind.

Kerry was in RVN for 4 months, 12 days. He spent aprox one month in
training. How many men DID he have cycle through his boat in those 3
months? And why........?

I suspect the reason is to be found in the letter from the 250
commanders who found Kerry to be unfit for command...

Ya think?

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

Mark,

I don't think I said anything at all about Mr. Kerry's altruism. In fact, I
know nothing of what he has given to others other than the fact that he
spent his life in public service from the first day he joined the USN right
out of college. What I did say is that he puts his own money where his
mouth is. But now that you mention it, I do think he has more years of such
"altruism" than Mr. Bush. Just what did Mr. Bush do between the ages of 20
and 40?

I have no expectations that Mr. Kerry is anything other than a fallible
human being. What I do know is that Mr. Bush has chosen his benchmarks and
then failed to achieve them; and that Mr. Bush has chosen to emphasize fear
of unthinkable events that may occur in the future while doing nothing to
educate Americans on what to expect should the unthinkable occur.

While the first leads only to questions of his ability as an executive able
to deliver, the latter demonstrates a failure of leadership and vision.

While Mr. Kerry has not faced the same tests as Mr. Bush, in my book Mr.
Bush's Administration looks like Global Crossing and it is time to readjust
the portfolio. And it makes no sense to belabor Mr. Kerry's lack of
opportunity to face the same tests which Mr. Bush failed. There was no way
to predict Mr. Bush's performance on these tests when he was running. There
is no way to predict ANY potential President's performance in these areas.
While Mr. Kerry lacks a track record on those challenges, Mr. Bush HAS a
track record. And for whatever reasons, he failed to meet the very
benchmarks he set for himself. Given that the best predictor of future
performance is past performance, we CAN predict Mr. Bush's effectiveness in
the future.

Who is to blame when Cabinet members and senior appointees, life long
Republicans, leave Mr. Bush because they no longer believe he is up to the
challenge? Is it that Mr. Bush isn't meeting his benchmarks? Or, is it
that Mr. Bush is not the judge of character he prides himself on when he
looks Mr. Putin in the eye and knows he has a friend and ally? What MAKES
lifelong Republicans take such drastic action? Was Mr. Simon looking to
become a movie star? He expected the few bucks he would make on book
royalties was worth the tradeoff of alienating himself from a life time's
worth of friends?

Even Mr. McNamara decided not to resign over Vietnam because he knew it
would
call Johnson's leadership into question. I think you have to go back to
Hoover to find such desertions.

Mr. Kerry has been talking about the same issues I have mulled in the last 3
years, many of them on this list. He is hitting the issues and talking
about the values that are of importance to me. Mr. Bush is bereft of vision
and consistently latches onto themes that Mr. Kerry shows resonate. Mr.
Bush talks of what we have to fear rather than how we can face those fears.

Mr. Kerry talks of the future and of making the choice in the favor of
families when there is no compelling reason to decide for business. His
appointments will NOT lead to an FCC that Courts and Congress must overrule
on allowing media monopoly, his appointments will NOT lead to a FERC
(Federal Electricity Reg. Comm) that allows an environment in which Enron
traders can gleefully trade exchanges on how they just "f***" grandma in
California. MR. Kerry will NOT appoint an FDA Administrator who blocks
Americans from buying pharmaceuticals formulated here in the US via Canadian
pharmacies. This only protects the profits of the pharmaceuticals at the
expense of families. Given that virtually all new drug research is
subsidized by taxpayers via the fact that this research is conducted in US
Medical Schools, how IS it that Americans wind up paying a higher cost for
drugs than Canadians? If those companies can make a profit selling at low
prices in Canada, they sure as Hell can make a profit here in the US at the
lower price. Instead, what does Mr. Bush do? He created aprogram that
simply made it easier for drug makers and pharmacies to increase their
prices. Mr. Bush TALKS about family values; but like the politics of family
finance and the politics of morality, you need a comparison. And when you
compare business and families, it is clear that Mr. Bush values Corporations
before families.

So, is it surprising Mr. Kerry draws crowds when he makes it clear that by
family values, he means putting family interests ahead of Corporate
interests?

And at the same time, with all this ideological vitriol from the Republican
party, no one has been able to identify a single "back room" deal that Mr.
Kerry made with any interest group. Not corporate, not union, not AARP,
nothing. Dear God, by Mr. Bush's own words Mr. Kerry has made no meaningful
promises to the NAACP. Which is why, I think, some move on to the thin ice
of delving into financial politics.

I think Mr. Gingrich's comparison of Mr. Bush to Mr. Truman is going to
haunt Mr. Bush. As many of you know, Mr. Truman was a failed haberdasher
and lived with his mother before entering politics in his late 30s. Nor was
he
considered a very effective Senator. It was Mr. Truman who introduced this
Country
to the horror of a world on the brink of nuclear destruction. How
differently Mr. Truman and
Mr. Bush approached their tasks. How poorly Mr. Truman's lack of a record
predicted
his Presidential leadership.
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707

"Lennie the Lurker" wrote in message
om...
"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
gy.com...

Who can say anything else? But do honor to the service men that died in
the
places you mention, and any where else that American servicemen have
died
for this country. Neither of the two candidates is an outstanding
example
of our fine service men and women. Kerry keeps talking about his
military
career, but take a look at what people that actually served with him
have to
say www.swiftvets.com . If you can find a similar site for Bush, let me
know.

Bush deserted.

Absolutely no proof of that, and only Democrat innuendo. As a matter of
fact, there are more people that served with him that verify his claims, and
I am not aware of anyone that served with him saying otherwise.




This means I want my child to have a future in which includes safe,
clean
air; safe clean water; reducing threat of environmental collapse due
to
global warming (which in my opinion should be no less a concern than
was
the
threat of Atomic War we dealt with for 40 years).

Again, who doesn't? I think you have fallen for the Democrat bs that if
the
Republicans remain in control that all environmental controls will be
eliminated and the Earth will go to hell. Literally. The Republicans
want
all that too, but I think they realize that it can't all be done at
once.

They also realize that if they don't look at it NOW, it won't make a
hell of a lot of difference in 100 years, people will look back and
wonder how it happened. The republicans have fought EVERY effort to
stop polution, tooth and nail.

Absolute rubbish.


Here in California, the
Democrat controlled state congress has caused more companies to flee the
state than anything else. Taxes are way too high. Workers Comp is out
of
control. Environmental controls had prevented the building of power
plants
and now we have a power crisis (granted this is not ALL the fault of
environmental controls, but it is a factor).

California is one **** poor example of anything. Your property
values, moral and financial values are so screwed up that nothing but
a dozen nukes could ever make it a habitable place. My brothers house
in northern wackyland is valued at $260000. Mine is valued at $78000.
Mine is bigger, better insulated, and has a bigger lot.

There is talk about raising
the minimum wage to over $8.00 an hour is some places, and I think I
actually heard talk about $10.00 per hour. On and on. This is what's
in
store for this country if the Democrats get their way.

I want my daughter and her children to live in a world that SEES and
ADMIRES
the USA as a beacon of world leadership. Not the leadership style
that
comes by owning the biggest gun; but leadership that comes by the
daily
living of values and seemingly insignificant acts that make it
apparent
every day that the US is the "real deal".

Quite often, decisions made by leaders are not popular, but they are
correct.

Not from bush.

I strongly disagree.


I will give you this, though. Bush is making far too much of a deal
about
them. What he really needs to do is start acting like a conservative
and
start eliminating government waste, eliminate some of the worse than
useless
burocracies like NEA and others, and start eliminating some of the
government "entitlement" programs. And YES, the Social Security system
does
need to be replaced. And NO, grandma will not be thrown out into the
streets.

I suggest you include eliminating the SBA, and any other office we
maintain that is supposed to be for the benefit of business, and let
the *******s either make it or break it on their own. The republican
party has been trying to kill social security since the day it was put
in effect, "It's too much drag on business." Sound familiar?

Saying that the Republican party has been trying to kill SS is just not
true. Replace with a better system? yes. Kill? no.


What is causing the freightening financial positions? Medicare, Social
Security, and Welfare programs that are top heavy, inflexible,
inefficient,
wrought with fraud and waste, and designed to keep people in the
programs
instead of helping them rise above?

Only a small fraction of what the military WASTES. Smaller fraction
of their overall budget.

Even that will not accomodate Kerry's national health care.


WMD's - I
don't really care a whole lot about them.

Bush knew it was a lie, and when he denies it, he's just following the
way he lives, a lie. He's a walmart imitation of a man, made in china
from inferior materials and poor workmanship. Gutless coward that hid
behind his daddy's skirts so he didn't have to take any chances on
ending up where he might get a hangnail.

If Bush new it was a lie, then so did Kerry and every other politician. The
Senate Intelligence committee had all the info. I also find it interesting
how some of your kind can say that Bush such a liar after 8 years of the
biggest liar the presidency has every known. And if Kerry is elected, that
trend will continue. Talk about a liar.

republican policy has failed since the inception of the abortion that
they are, why change now?

Same for the Dems.

On 2 Aug 2004 12:25:48 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

This is not intellectually honest, and displays not only a strong
bias, but your modest ad hominem attacks now on the Right is most
telling.

Could somebody please explain the dual personality I see here?
When somebody makes a post criticial of the right, we see
Mother Theresa responding with comments.

When he himself talks about the left, I can't tell if it's
Limbaugh or Moe Howard at the keyboard. It's a fine line.

Jim

Its called informed Bias. Something Ive never denied. When someone
makes a proper and factual criticism of the Right, I will let let
pass, or agree. When someone makes a bogus critism..I will respond.
There is a fine line......

Chuckle

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

In article , Gunner says...

Could somebody please explain the dual personality I see here?

Its called informed Bias. Something Ive never denied. When someone
makes a proper and factual criticism of the Right, I will let let
pass, or agree. When someone makes a bogus critism..I will respond.
There is a fine line......

Heh. I guess it's a 'tone' thing. The joke is about two linemen
who get called into the bosses office, and dressed down for their
on-the-job behavior. SEems that some lady called up to complain
that their language was a bit on the rough side.

"Well that's unfair," the one guy says. "I just accidentally
dropped my bolt cutters down on Clarance's head while I was
working up on the pole."

"That's right" says Clarance. "And I told him that he *really*
must try to be more careful with his tools in the future!"

What am I getting at here - I think when you are defending some
moronic right-wing activity, the image that comes across is
of a glorious statesman, making a grand speech that instils
the noblest of motives, and demands the pinnacle of decorum and
politeness.

When you're laughing at some liberal cause, the image that comes
to mind is that of Dick Cheney, saying - oh well never mind.
You know very well what he said....

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Wayne,

You lost me when you interpreted photo op setups as statements on morals.
What do you infer by Mr. Bush's use of "ticket only " admission to his
rallies as a way of concealing dissenters? To me these things are just
photo op management; they say nothing of "morality".

But then, since you make the effort to read to learn of the candidates
morals, you appear to be more of an expert on morality than I. Just as I
find it useless to judge a man for killing in combat, I find it useless to
judge another person's "morals" or "morality". I have a hard enough time
evaluating my own efforts at being a useful human. And, after the fiascos
of Newt Gingrich, Ed Bennet, Rush Limbaugh and Tammy Baker, I am leery of
those who claim to know how to judge the morality of others.

While the judgment of morals provides a broad range of discussion, I freely
admit I forsake claims to knowing how to judge another person's morals.

Rather than judging someone's morals, I evaluate their behavior; in
particular their performance against what they say they are going to do.

I am much more interested in a Priest's (coach, teacher,whoever) behavior
toward my child than I am about his "morals".

Be that as it may, your efforts to "get inside my head" and redefine my
thoughts founder on one hard rock. And that is that until last week, I was
a registered Republican who made hundreds of campaign phone calls in a
predominantly Democratic state (Maryland). Was I "duped" then as well? I
am sure you have a wisecrack response; but the fact remains that I arrive at
my position based on an analysis of observable evidence; individual
performance and behavior.

Oh yes, it is a matter of record. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan NEVER let fear of Atomic War become the
theme of the Government. They dealt with situations as they arose and tried
to ensure people knew how to respond should the unthinkable occur. But they
NEVER dwelt on it. And those who did (like those protestors who organized
"Ban the Bomb" protests) were decried as doom Sayers. We had our " under
your desk and kiss your ass goodbye" drills and people were encouraged to
build bomb shelters. But, in all cases, these Presidents kept Americans eyes
on the promise of tomorrow. And I might add, the stock markets rose
steadily through the worst of it (before SALT I) and even in spite of
Vietnam. THOSE were uncertain times.

Even with his tax cuts, Mr. Bush can not get things started. And many
economists have said this is the result of Americans uncertainty of what
tomorrow holds. And THAT is a direct result of how we are being led.

Still, I would be interested to know just what you think is expected of you
should the unthinkable occur in your area. What do you think would be your
responsibility if you wound up in a quarantined area? How would medical
treatment be rationed? What could you have done to have decreased your
reliance on what would then be tightly controlled (read under CDC/military
control) resources? And how did Mr. Bush aid you in your knowledge? You
claim to be concerned about government intrusion. While I mostly agree with
the rationale, plans and laws enacted regarding how to handle a post
bioattack Community, it WILL be a major governmental intrusion. And if you
think you are going to yell your way past a Sergeant or Major authorized to
use lethal force to maintain order, you are delusional. Sadly, most of
those confrontations could be avoided if we were educated in advance on what
to expect.

Like the story about the bird who was freed from frozen **** by the fox (one
of those long modern parables); not all who antagonize you are unhelpful,
and not all you call friend will be there to pull you out of the ****.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707
"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
.com...

On 2 Aug 2004 18:34:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:


What am I getting at here - I think when you are defending some
moronic right-wing activity, the image that comes across is
of a glorious statesman, making a grand speech that instils
the noblest of motives, and demands the pinnacle of decorum and
politeness.

When you're laughing at some liberal cause, the image that comes
to mind is that of Dick Cheney, saying - oh well never mind.
You know very well what he said....

Jim

Opinion is based on bias for one cause or another. I have strong
conservative beliefs. You have moderate Liberal beliefs. I look at
30+ years of Liberal agendas, and damage to this nation, and really
dont want any more.

You look at your chosen groups agendas being thwarted and are miffed
that your people are not getting their way. Toss in 30yrs of liberal
demonization of the Right, and your programming is almost complete.

Shrug

Got a heads up for you Jim. Politics is cyclical. It goes from Left
to Right and back again at a slow pendulum like beat. Its been 30 yrs
since it swung Left. Its now swinging Right. Deal with this fact. Also
deal with the fact the Left is paniced by this natural phenomenon and
like rats deserting a sinking ship, are willing to run roughshod or
savage anyone who gets in their way. Also bear in mind that to the
Left, all means justify the end goal. Lies, spin, demonization, murder
rape and pillage are all Leftwing methods to reach their goals.

When one questions their tactics..the questioner will be the recipient
of more of the same, in an attempt to silence them. After all..being
the self chosen representatives of the People..and their agenda and
world view being the only True view..like the Taliban..desent makes
the dessenter or questioner a danger to the Religion..in this case
Liberalism, and anything goes to silence or poison their detractors to
those that may be influenced.

Shrug. Its the wagon you have hitched your horses to.

Either jump off the Democrat Bandwagon, or ride it off the cliff.
Either way..its going off the cliff.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

In article , Gunner says...

You look at your chosen groups agendas being thwarted and are miffed
that your people are not getting their way.

Is that what politics is *about* for you? "Getting your way?"
It isn't for me. I like to think that there are some values
and principles behind the ideas. Not just a case of 'what's
in it for me.'

Anyway they're not 'my people.' Not in the least. Consider that
everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% might *not* be 100%
on board with the other platform.

Values. Principles. Sounds stupid I know to trot out stuff
like that in the middle of political campaign. Serves me
right.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , ??? says...

Wayne,

You lost me when you interpreted photo op setups as statements on morals.
What do you infer by Mr. Bush's use of "ticket only " admission to his
rallies as a way of concealing dissenters? To me these things are just
photo op management; they say nothing of "morality".

Well, not morality. But smarts, they do say something about smarts.
If you have to sign a loyalty oath to hear the man speak then consider:

The folks who were *going* to vote for him anway, will sign and
show up. The folks who weren't going to vote for him, will be
excluded. But they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

But what about the folks in the middle, those who have an open mind?

I suspect they're gonna say "no, thanks." Both at the rally, and
more importantly, in the voting booth.

Frankly that stunt with the admission tickets struck me as a
*particularly* bone-headed move.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:30:19 -0400, "???" wrote:


Even with his tax cuts, Mr. Bush can not get things started. And many
economists have said this is the result of Americans uncertainty of what
tomorrow holds. And THAT is a direct result of how we are being led.

Thats odd..seems the cconomy disgrees with you.

I got a PO today for a new $32,000 machine tool, and RFQs for 4 more.

Seems that the manufacturing sector is rising at a 30 yr all time
high.

Sounds like a failure to get things started, right?

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:30:19 -0400, "???" wrote:

Still, I would be interested to know just what you think is expected of you
should the unthinkable occur in your area. What do you think would be your
responsibility if you wound up in a quarantined area? How would medical
treatment be rationed? What could you have done to have decreased your
reliance on what would then be tightly controlled (read under CDC/military
control) resources? And how did Mr. Bush aid you in your knowledge? You
claim to be concerned about government intrusion. While I mostly agree with
the rationale, plans and laws enacted regarding how to handle a post
bioattack Community, it WILL be a major governmental intrusion. And if you
think you are going to yell your way past a Sergeant or Major authorized to
use lethal force to maintain order, you are delusional. Sadly, most of
those confrontations could be avoided if we were educated in advance on what
to expect.

Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to me.

Chuckle..

Gunner
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

"???" wrote in message ...
Wayne,

You lost me when you interpreted photo op setups as statements on morals.
What do you infer by Mr. Bush's use of "ticket only " admission to his
rallies as a way of concealing dissenters? To me these things are just
photo op management; they say nothing of "morality".

My point wasn't so much about photo-op setups but about how people are
treated. Both parties have their ways of dealing with dissenters. Dealing
with dissenters is one thing, but the way people are treated is another.
Kerry took that servicemans moment in the spotlight away from him, used him,
and then shoved him out of the way. I have not heard of any occasions where
Bush has used a person the way Kerry did, and there are more stories about
Kerry than just this one. I won't deny that Bush has done it too, but I
have not heard of it. The way people treat other people reflects on their
character, and their character is derived from their morals. Kerry was
trying to make himself look popular. I don't have a problem with that. All
candidates to that. But the way he did it just wasn't right. That is one
reason why I give the nod to Bush on this one.

But then, since you make the effort to read to learn of the candidates
morals, you appear to be more of an expert on morality than I. Just as I
find it useless to judge a man for killing in combat, I find it useless to
judge another person's "morals" or "morality". I have a hard enough time
evaluating my own efforts at being a useful human. And, after the fiascos
of Newt Gingrich, Ed Bennet, Rush Limbaugh and Tammy Baker, I am leery of
those who claim to know how to judge the morality of others.

Tammy Baker was a Republican??? ew! :-)
Come on now. You know that I am no more an expert on morality that you.
However, you say that you find it useless to judge another persons morality.
To be honest, I have to say that I am having a great deal of difficulty
believing you. I think everyone evalutates a persons morals (be it
character or behavior) in some way at some time. I mean no disrespect and I
think you are sincere, and since I don't know you I am trying to accept your
statement. But let me ask you this. Let's assume that you have a 16 year
old daughter. You answer the doorbell one evening and there is a MAN
standing there who has come to take your daughter on a date. Can you
honestly tell me that you won't make some kind of judgements, good or bad,
about this man (and probably your own daughter) before he even says another
word? Suppose later on you find that he is deep into pornography. Are you
not going to make a judgement about his behavior (which has been guided by
his morals)?

But apparently you have no objection to your presidential candidate doing
so. Kerry is calling Bush a liar at every opportunity. Is that not a
morality issue? Kerry is calling Bush's policies immoral (paraphrasing).
Is that not a morality issue? At almost every turn, Kerry and the Democrats
are calling Bush's character, and so his morals, into question. Actually I
think that is almost immoral itself. Talk about issues.

You also mention the fiasco's of some notable Republicans and seem to give
the Democrats a free ride. The many scandals of Clinton (and I am not
speaking of Monica although that was certainly a morality issue wasn't it?).
China-gate. Whitewater-gate. Foster-gate. There was scandal after scandal
and he got a free ride. Many of them much more serious (to me at least)
than any of the people in your list. Why? Several resons. Strong media
bias for one. Janet Reno protecting him for another. Witnesses
mysteriously dying for another. And at the last count I heard, over 100
witness fled the country to avoid testifying against him. Who can forget
good 'ol Teddy and Chappaquiddick? And the most recent, Sandy Berger. How
do you "misplace" classified documents in your socks? Five times? Many
others that have been given a free ride.

While the judgment of morals provides a broad range of discussion, I
freely
admit I forsake claims to knowing how to judge another person's morals.

Rather than judging someone's morals, I evaluate their behavior; in
particular their performance against what they say they are going to do.

I am much more interested in a Priest's (coach, teacher,whoever) behavior
toward my child than I am about his "morals".

The Priest's (or whoever's) morals will determine his behavior toward your
child. I agree with you 100% that a persons behavior is very important,
but behavior is be driven by morals. If you are evaluating a persons
behavior (like Kerry and the basball game), then you are also evaluating his
morals.

Be that as it may, your efforts to "get inside my head" and redefine my
thoughts founder on one hard rock. And that is that until last week, I
was
a registered Republican who made hundreds of campaign phone calls in a
predominantly Democratic state (Maryland). Was I "duped" then as well? I
am sure you have a wisecrack response; but the fact remains that I arrive
at
my position based on an analysis of observable evidence; individual
performance and behavior.

Sorry about the RINO remark but our entire communication has been to try and
get inside each other's heads. I am trying to understand you but just
cannot. But now I am just totally confused as to how someone could be so
intimate with the Republican party, and be so easily swayed by campaign
rhetoric. Is Bush the ideal candidate? Hell no! Is Kerry? Hell no! We
have a crappy choice either way. I have found out more about Kerry than I
have Bush and I don't like what I see. His Vietnam service is a lie as far
as I'm concerned. His post Vietnam protesting, while well within his
rights, goes way beyond the line (his being honored by the communist
Vietnamese was confirmed. That should say something about his behavior.).
His Senate voting record is horrible. And I wonder why he has all of a
sudden changed his position on nearly everything. Sounds way to suspicious
to me, and it doesn't sound like he is being honest with us.

OK, "analysis of observable evidence; individual performance and behavior".
So what observable evidence do you have to support Kerry? Let's see...In
the Senate he voted against every single weapons system that came up for
years, but all of a sudden he is bullish on defense. Quite a turnaround in
just a few short months. He voted to cut intelligence spending, and now he
is telling us that he wants to increase spending. Another serious
turnaround. A good one, but still a chanage of heart. He voted to fund
the troops before he voted against funding the troops. (Sorry, that was
just to choice to pass up). He has not been attending the Intelligence
briefings offered by the Whitehouse (Bush is there daily, Kerry has missed
over 35 out of 45 meetings). If I remember correctly (I sure seem to be
saying that a lot, don't I?), He says life begins at conception, but yet he
voted in favor of partial birth abortion (I think he has miraculously
changed his position on that one). I don't know how he justifies that. I
also find it disturbing that the Communist Party of America and the
Democratic Socialist of America have backed Kerry. He proposed tax
legislation that was intended to crack down on US companies sending jobs
overseas, but included a gigantic loophole for companies like HJ Heinz. I
wonder why? That fundraiser with Whoopee Goldberg was disgusting and he
calls people like that the heart and soul of America (by the way, The Kerry
people are still refusing to release the film about that). I am also
concerned that Hizbullah is supporting Kerry. Kerry's said that the key to
US security is to is to unilaterally stop producing nuclear weapons.
That'll work. He speaks of how horrible it is to be sending jobs overseas
while his wife is making tons of money doing just that. Why hasn't he
release his complete military record? He must be hiding something. and on
and on

So Bush has missed a few benchmarks. Big deal.

Oh yes, it is a matter of record. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan NEVER let fear of Atomic War become the
theme of the Government. They dealt with situations as they arose and
tried
to ensure people knew how to respond should the unthinkable occur. But
they
NEVER dwelt on it. And those who did (like those protestors who organized
"Ban the Bomb" protests) were decried as doom Sayers. We had our " under
your desk and kiss your ass goodbye" drills and people were encouraged to
build bomb shelters. But, in all cases, these Presidents kept Americans
eyes
on the promise of tomorrow. And I might add, the stock markets rose
steadily through the worst of it (before SALT I) and even in spite of
Vietnam. THOSE were uncertain times.

I would have to take issue with that statement until you tell me what record
you are talking about. You have your record and I have my memories. From
what I have lived through, read about, and seen on TV, they have put the
fear into us about Nuclear annihilation. And I just think you have turned a
deaf ear on Bush. I think he has a much higher opinion of the American
poeple than Kerry does. I have heard him talk about his "vision" of the
future. He doesn't do it nearly enough and should talk about that more
often like Kerry.
One other thing. All of those former presidents never faced an enemy like
we have today. The enemies of old were primarily governments with armies
that could be confronted and defeated. Today's enemy is a religious
ideology and the soldiers are religious fanatics. The soldiers do not have
uniforms, or high tech equipment or even a structured chain of command, and
there is no government. They do not negotiate. We can't see the enemy
because they are among us. If you are walking down the street, a man could
come up next to you and blow you up. They probably have the means and
ability to blow up buildings, bridges, dams, disrupt power, etc. Their
tactics are mearly to kill and disrupt as many of us as possible. This is
unprecidented barbarism in modern times. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Even with his tax cuts, Mr. Bush can not get things started. And many
economists have said this is the result of Americans uncertainty of what
tomorrow holds. And THAT is a direct result of how we are being led.

I don't see how Kerry can do any better. I think the corporate world is
waiting too and if Kerry is elected I would expect the markets to tank for a
while. Would they rebound? Sure. They always do. Just look what happened
when Kerry announced his running mate. I don't remember the numbers but the
markets took a hit. From the news reports, it sounds like Kerry's "vision"
has business worried.

Still, I would be interested to know just what you think is expected of
you
should the unthinkable occur in your area. What do you think would be
your
responsibility if you wound up in a quarantined area? How would medical
treatment be rationed? What could you have done to have decreased your
reliance on what would then be tightly controlled (read under CDC/military
control) resources? And how did Mr. Bush aid you in your knowledge?

This I find curious. I read this as you saying that on one hand Bush
shouldn't be telling us to be afraid, but on the other he should be telling
us to be afraid? That is what would happen if Bush started a campaign to
"educate" everyone about what do do in the event of an emergency. People
would become very afraid because they would think an attack is imminent. It
would probably dominate the news for weeks. Not to mention the fact that
the Democrats would be telling everyone that would listen how Bush was
making a political issue out of it. By the way, which unthinkable events
should we be planning for? Nuclear attack which would call for one plan?
Biological attack which would call for a different plan? Or Chemical which
would call for yet another plan? All of the above? Lots of money, and lots
of fear.

I will give you this, though. Our local relief and disaster agencies should
be helping out with that one and they don't seem to be. Could use a little
better leadership there, but there is no evidence that Kerry will do any
better.

You claim to be concerned about government intrusion. While I mostly
agree with
the rationale, plans and laws enacted regarding how to handle a post
bioattack Community, it WILL be a major governmental intrusion. And if
you
think you are going to yell your way past a Sergeant or Major authorized
to
use lethal force to maintain order, you are delusional. Sadly, most of
those confrontations could be avoided if we were educated in advance on
what
to expect.

This would certainly be a HUGE intrusion. But it is one time that the
government SHOULD intrude. The main purpose of the Federal government (to
me at least) is to protect the people. That may mean quarantining an area
that has been the victim of a biological attack. I would expect nothing
less. It wouldn't necessarily be for the protection of those of us inside
the zone, although I am naive enough to assume that the government would
give us their best effort to help us, but it would mostly be for the
protection of the rest of the country and possibly the world. And I don't
think I necessarily agree with you that the types of confrontations you
mention could be avoided if we were educated in advance. People will be
people and when they are cornered they will either fight or flee. That is
not a negative comment about people, they would just be driven by human
instinct and fear.

Like the story about the bird who was freed from frozen **** by the fox
(one
of those long modern parables); not all who antagonize you are unhelpful,
and not all you call friend will be there to pull you out of the ****.

haven't heard that one.
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707
"NoOne N Particular" wrote in message
.com...


Well I think that we have certainly learned one thing out of all this. We
are not about to change each others minds on this subject. Both of us will
just have to live with the fact that I'm right and you are not. :-)

Take care,

Wayne

On 1 Aug 2004 22:49:37 -0700, (Lennie the Lurker) wrote:
The republicans have fought EVERY effort to
stop polution, tooth and nail.

Now which President was it who created the EPA?

Well, well, it was that old devil tricky Dick Nixon, Republican.

Gary

On 2 Aug 2004 19:59:46 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

You look at your chosen groups agendas being thwarted and are miffed
that your people are not getting their way.

Is that what politics is *about* for you? "Getting your way?"
It isn't for me. I like to think that there are some values
and principles behind the ideas. Not just a case of 'what's
in it for me.'

So you actually agree with Leftist principles such as stealing from
one individual and giving the loot to another? Violating the sanctity
of private property? Taxing into closure companies that employ
thousands? (I can go on...)

Really? Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway they're not 'my people.' Not in the least. Consider that
everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% might *not* be 100%
on board with the other platform.

So that means I should vote Democrat because I agree with .01% of
their agenda? Hummm you are a gun owner..that means you should be
voting Republican, no matter that you disagree with private property,
etc. Right?

Values. Principles. Sounds stupid I know to trot out stuff
like that in the middle of political campaign. Serves me
right.

Jim

Jim..values and Princibles are what make this country great.
Unfortunately those Values and princibles held sacred by the Left are
bull**** in my opinion..not only bull**** but 180 degrees away from
what I hold holy and dear. Those Values and Princibles held by the
Left are 180 degrees from those held by the majority of Americans, and
from the Founders. Given the Founders were pretty smart fellas for
old dead white guys..Id have to say values and princibles that oppose
theirs..are not only wrong..but treasonous. Shrug. But if you wish to
vote for those values and princible..feel free. Such is your right, no
matter how wrong headed you are.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

On 2 Aug 2004 20:04:09 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , ??? says...

Wayne,

You lost me when you interpreted photo op setups as statements on morals.
What do you infer by Mr. Bush's use of "ticket only " admission to his
rallies as a way of concealing dissenters? To me these things are just
photo op management; they say nothing of "morality".

Well, not morality. But smarts, they do say something about smarts.
If you have to sign a loyalty oath to hear the man speak then consider:

The folks who were *going* to vote for him anway, will sign and
show up. The folks who weren't going to vote for him, will be
excluded. But they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

But what about the folks in the middle, those who have an open mind?

I suspect they're gonna say "no, thanks." Both at the rally, and
more importantly, in the voting booth.

Frankly that stunt with the admission tickets struck me as a
*particularly* bone-headed move.

Jim

Like the Marx Brothers going to Wendys for a Everyman photo shoot,
then tossing the food and going out to the Executive Campaign Land
Yaght and having a 5 star meal catered in? And not even buying the
food for the people in the restaurant? And having it all recorded
for posterity? Yup..both sides tend to do really stupid things. Now
about the Tickets you were talking about..some details please.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 05:48:22 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:

This would certainly be a HUGE intrusion. But it is one time that the
government SHOULD intrude. The main purpose of the Federal government (to
me at least) is to protect the people. That may mean quarantining an area
that has been the victim of a biological attack. I would expect nothing
less. It wouldn't necessarily be for the protection of those of us inside
the zone, although I am naive enough to assume that the government would
give us their best effort to help us, but it would mostly be for the
protection of the rest of the country and possibly the world. And I don't
think I necessarily agree with you that the types of confrontations you
mention could be avoided if we were educated in advance. People will be
people and when they are cornered they will either fight or flee. That is
not a negative comment about people, they would just be driven by human
instinct and fear.

How is Kery going to handle a US version of this?

Dirty bomb victims 'may be shot'


http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=547552003
JOHN INNES, March 15, 2004

POLICE could be forced to shoot members of the public to maintain
order in the event of a terrorist "dirty bomb" or biological attack on
Britain, it was claimed yesterday.

The Police Federation annual conference in Blackpool was told that so
few officers have been trained to deal with a chemical, biological,
nuclear or radiological strike that they would have to resort to "very
unsavoury but necessary" crowd control.

Bob Elder, the chairman of the constables’ central committee, did not
refer specifically to officers firing on civilians, but sources within
the organisation said it was clear police could have to resort to
firerms to stop contamination being spread by fleeing victims.

The government had failed to explain how important it would be to keep
the public inside a cordon after such an atrocity, Mr Elder said.

"This is not about creating mass hysteria," he said. "This is about
the opposite. The public has a right to know.

"The natural reaction from the public caught up in such an incident
will be to get as far away from the scene as possible. This could, of
course, only extend the problem."

In another reference to the possible use of firearms to keep control
of an area, Mr Elder added: "We will be the ones who would have to
carry out that containment and we would be the ones held responsible
for our actions -whatever those may be."

Asked if he could foresee officers firing on civilians, he said: "It’s
an option the government is going to have to consider. We haven’t got
enough cops trained to deal with full-scale containment and it’s
putting everyone at risk."

A spokesman for the Home Office insisted police would not have powers
to shoot the public to enforce a cordon in the event of a chemical,
biological, nuclear or radiological strike attack.

"Police have the right to detain people if they present a risk to the
public," he said. "There are no circumstances in which police could
operate some kind of shoot to kill policy under the law."


So how does one Contain or Detain thousands of people fleeing a hot
zone?

Call in the UN and let them shoot the citizens? What would Kerry do?

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

Mark,

That encapsulates the difference between us, You look at one machine sale
and think your world is OK now. You push out of your mind the annual income
and liabilities you told this group of.

Me, I look at the trends in corporate earnings, consumer purchases, people
needing assistance,the deficit, and oil prices over $43 per barrel (has been
over $39 and rising steadily for a couple weeks now). It will take more
than one watch restoration to convince me the world is hunky dory.


--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707

Mark,

You wrote: Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to me.

Call it what you want but I know a number of people in Maryland who ran out
and bought summer homes in Western Maryland in the 9 months after the
anthrax mailings. They plan on leaving the area if the unthinkable happens.

Me, I paid attention to the authorities the CDC asked from Congress and to
the plans created by FEMA and Dept of Health for how emergency resources
would be deployed. I understood that planning on running away was dumb for
two reasons: first, the resources were going to be sent to the impact area
and anyone who left that area would be punished by being left untreated.
Second, the CDC would be authorized to request assistance not only from the
Guard, but active military units in order to effect a quarantine.

So, "shelter in place".

So there it lies. We have leaders who have created a culture of fear of the
unthinkable, but they have not educated their fellow citizens of what to
expect should the unthinkable happen. Yet, Congressional delegations ,
their staff, Cabinet Officers, Supreme Court Justices, and Senior Staff (3
or 4 levels below Dept. Secretary) as well as most Govt. Employees (my wife
being one) in DC know what to expect.

Because someone took the time to explain it to them.

I am not trying to feed your survivalist bent; I am merely pointing out that
Mr. Bush has not thought it important or perhaps wise to ensure his "fellow"
Americans know what to expect should the unthinkable occur.

That is either a leader of poor vision, or a leader who does not trust those
whom he would lead.


--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707
"

"???" wrote in message ...
Mark,

You wrote: Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to me.

Call it what you want but I know a number of people in Maryland who ran
out
and bought summer homes in Western Maryland in the 9 months after the
anthrax mailings. They plan on leaving the area if the unthinkable
happens.

Me, I paid attention to the authorities the CDC asked from Congress and to
the plans created by FEMA and Dept of Health for how emergency resources

But you didn't pay attention to the name on the newsgroup? Do you even work
with metal?

Joel. phx

rec.crafts.metalworking

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:00:22 -0400, "???" wrote:

Mark,

That encapsulates the difference between us, You look at one machine sale
and think your world is OK now. You push out of your mind the annual income
and liabilities you told this group of.

Me, I look at the trends in corporate earnings, consumer purchases, people
needing assistance,the deficit, and oil prices over $43 per barrel (has been
over $39 and rising steadily for a couple weeks now). It will take more
than one watch restoration to convince me the world is hunky dory.

Actually Dewy..I look at the various manufacturing related groups I
subscribe to, and virtually everyone is putting on a second or third
shift. Seems that manufacturing is coming back in gang busters.
Someone is buying those parts. They are not for the most part, defense
related. People particularly those people still recovering from a
recession dont buy parts to make things with, on spec. So they must
have buyers. Those buyers must have money. That money is coming from
somewhere. Its being spent somewhere. Taxes are being paid on it, its
being reinvested, yada yada.

Shrug..perhaps its a microcosm..but it sure as hell means there is
money out there in increasing amounts.

Now if you want to get all Fruedian, feel free.
Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:31:23 -0400, "???" wrote:

Mark,

You wrote: Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to me.

Call it what you want but I know a number of people in Maryland who ran out
and bought summer homes in Western Maryland in the 9 months after the
anthrax mailings. They plan on leaving the area if the unthinkable happens.

Me, I paid attention to the authorities the CDC asked from Congress and to
the plans created by FEMA and Dept of Health for how emergency resources
would be deployed. I understood that planning on running away was dumb for
two reasons: first, the resources were going to be sent to the impact area
and anyone who left that area would be punished by being left untreated.
Second, the CDC would be authorized to request assistance not only from the
Guard, but active military units in order to effect a quarantine.

So, "shelter in place".

So there it lies. We have leaders who have created a culture of fear of the
unthinkable, but they have not educated their fellow citizens of what to
expect should the unthinkable happen. Yet, Congressional delegations ,
their staff, Cabinet Officers, Supreme Court Justices, and Senior Staff (3
or 4 levels below Dept. Secretary) as well as most Govt. Employees (my wife
being one) in DC know what to expect.

Because someone took the time to explain it to them.

I am not trying to feed your survivalist bent; I am merely pointing out that
Mr. Bush has not thought it important or perhaps wise to ensure his "fellow"
Americans know what to expect should the unthinkable occur.

That is either a leader of poor vision, or a leader who does not trust those
whom he would lead.


ah..Dewey? In case you didnt see the humor in that..you must be aware
that Im a survivalist? Have been for over 25 yrs. I teach various
aspects of the art.

perhaps I should have included the Humor/On flags.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 2 Aug 2004 18:34:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

snippage
Got a heads up for you Jim. Politics is cyclical. It goes from Left
to Right and back again at a slow pendulum like beat. Its been 30 yrs
since it swung Left. Its now swinging Right.

I have a minor disagreement here, Gunner. I don't think it is the pendulum
swinging, it is the parties. If one of the Patron Saints of the Democrat
party, John Kennedy, was alive today and maintained the same political
points of view that he had back in the early 60's, HE would be the right
wing extremist. So the pendulum isn't swinging, it is only how the pendulum
is viewed. The Republican party of today is even more left than the
Democrat party of 40 years ago. That really worries me.

Wayne

Joel,

Check out the website in my sig file.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707
"Joel Corwith" wrote in message
...

"???" wrote in message ...
Mark,

You wrote: Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to
me.

Call it what you want but I know a number of people in Maryland who ran
out
and bought summer homes in Western Maryland in the 9 months after the
anthrax mailings. They plan on leaving the area if the unthinkable
happens.

Me, I paid attention to the authorities the CDC asked from Congress and
to
the plans created by FEMA and Dept of Health for how emergency resources

But you didn't pay attention to the name on the newsgroup? Do you even
work
with metal?

Joel. phx

rec.crafts.metalworking

Mark,

I do know it is an interest of yours. It was before my second cup of coffee
and I was looking for a segue to emphasize how little effort has been put
into public education.

Didn't mean to imply *you* did not know what I was talking about.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/mysit...est&ref=878707
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:31:23 -0400, "???" wrote:

Mark,

You wrote: Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to
me.

Call it what you want but I know a number of people in Maryland who ran
out
and bought summer homes in Western Maryland in the 9 months after the
anthrax mailings. They plan on leaving the area if the unthinkable
happens.

Me, I paid attention to the authorities the CDC asked from Congress and
to
the plans created by FEMA and Dept of Health for how emergency resources
would be deployed. I understood that planning on running away was dumb
for
two reasons: first, the resources were going to be sent to the impact
area
and anyone who left that area would be punished by being left untreated.
Second, the CDC would be authorized to request assistance not only from
the
Guard, but active military units in order to effect a quarantine.

So, "shelter in place".

So there it lies. We have leaders who have created a culture of fear of
the
unthinkable, but they have not educated their fellow citizens of what to
expect should the unthinkable happen. Yet, Congressional delegations ,
their staff, Cabinet Officers, Supreme Court Justices, and Senior Staff
(3
or 4 levels below Dept. Secretary) as well as most Govt. Employees (my
wife
being one) in DC know what to expect.

Because someone took the time to explain it to them.

I am not trying to feed your survivalist bent; I am merely pointing out
that
Mr. Bush has not thought it important or perhaps wise to ensure his
"fellow"
Americans know what to expect should the unthinkable occur.

That is either a leader of poor vision, or a leader who does not trust
those
whom he would lead.


ah..Dewey? In case you didnt see the humor in that..you must be aware
that Im a survivalist? Have been for over 25 yrs. I teach various
aspects of the art.

perhaps I should have included the Humor/On flags.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

In article , Gunner says...

So you actually agree with Leftist principles such as stealing from
one individual and giving the loot to another?

Those are called 'entitlement programs' my friend. Like
social security and medicare. Face it, those are not going
away. Most folks who vote your way would squeal like a
stuck pig of you suggested ending them.

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary Coffman says...

On 1 Aug 2004 22:49:37 -0700, (Lennie the Lurker)
wrote:
The republicans have fought EVERY effort to
stop polution, tooth and nail.

Now which President was it who created the EPA?

Well, well, it was that old devil tricky Dick Nixon, Republican.

Hmm. OK he created them. But he didn't *like* them!

:^)

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"???" wrote in message ...
Joel,

Check out the website in my sig file.

No, actually I noticed a post about clock making/repair. Cool stuff. Post
something interesting you've seen, worked on, couldn't figure out. It is a
metalworking group after all!

Joel. phx

I don't subscribe to alt.politics.* for a reason. Why bring it here?


--
Regards,
Dewey Clark
http://www.historictimekeepers.com

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:31:23 -0400, "???" wrote:

Mark,

You wrote: Oh oh..sounds like "Survivalist paranoia crazy talk" to me.

Call it what you want but I know a number of people in Maryland who ran out
and bought summer homes in Western Maryland in the 9 months after the
anthrax mailings. They plan on leaving the area if the unthinkable happens.

Me, I paid attention to the authorities the CDC asked from Congress and to
the plans created by FEMA and Dept of Health for how emergency resources
would be deployed. I understood that planning on running away was dumb for
two reasons: first, the resources were going to be sent to the impact area
and anyone who left that area would be punished by being left untreated.
Second, the CDC would be authorized to request assistance not only from the
Guard, but active military units in order to effect a quarantine.

So, "shelter in place".

So there it lies. We have leaders who have created a culture of fear of the
unthinkable, but they have not educated their fellow citizens of what to
expect should the unthinkable happen. Yet, Congressional delegations ,
their staff, Cabinet Officers, Supreme Court Justices, and Senior Staff (3
or 4 levels below Dept. Secretary) as well as most Govt. Employees (my wife
being one) in DC know what to expect.

Because someone took the time to explain it to them.

I am not trying to feed your survivalist bent; I am merely pointing out that
Mr. Bush has not thought it important or perhaps wise to ensure his "fellow"
Americans know what to expect should the unthinkable occur.

That is either a leader of poor vision, or a leader who does not trust those
whom he would lead.


ah..Dewey? In case you didnt see the humor in that..you must be aware
that Im a survivalist? Have been for over 25 yrs. I teach various
aspects of the art.

perhaps I should have included the Humor/On flags.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

Who cares about the trivia.

Bush's greatest liability in becoming re-elected is John Ashcroft.

His greatest asset in becoming re-elected is John Kerry.

How long do you believe that it is going to be before the Bush camp
figures this one out?

Harry C.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:51:17 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Aug 2004 18:34:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

snippage
Got a heads up for you Jim. Politics is cyclical. It goes from Left
to Right and back again at a slow pendulum like beat. Its been 30 yrs
since it swung Left. Its now swinging Right.

I have a minor disagreement here, Gunner. I don't think it is the pendulum
swinging, it is the parties. If one of the Patron Saints of the Democrat
party, John Kennedy, was alive today and maintained the same political
points of view that he had back in the early 60's, HE would be the right
wing extremist. So the pendulum isn't swinging, it is only how the pendulum
is viewed. The Republican party of today is even more left than the
Democrat party of 40 years ago. That really worries me.

Wayne


There is indeed some truth to this. Who was it..Goldwater that said :

"I didnt leave the Democrat party, it left me."

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On 3 Aug 2004 20:42:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

So you actually agree with Leftist principles such as
stealing from one individual and giving the loot to
another?

Just how did you pay for your hospital bill?

That would be the Wimpy method - "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a
hamburger today". You weren't supposed to notice that for all intents
and purposes, loot was stolen from the hospital and given to him. Of
course Gunner sees it as more of a loan. As in, it's exactly like a
loan, except for the lack of prior approval, adequate collateral,
genuine interest, decent odds of payoff before more funds are
required, or profit for the lender. I'm sure that if you were in a
smoke and Mountain Dew induced haze, you'd understand why he's on
Usenet all day bitching about Lefties.

Wayne.